I’ve just added LatexRender support to this weblog, using Steve Mayer’s WordPress plugin. In principle you should now be able to add formulas in TeX in the comments by putting the TeX in between [tex ] and [/tex ] (without the space).

Here’s an example of the output:

[tex]\displaystyle{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx=\sqrt{\pi}}[/tex]

I fear this will undoubtedly require some further debugging, but no time for that right now.

**Update**: This is now long out of date. I’ve replaced LatexRender with MathJax support. The opening and closing delimiters for tex math are now ‘\$’ and for displayed math are “\$\$”.

Let’s see if this works in the comments:

[tex]\displaystyle{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx=\sqrt{\pi}}[/tex]

[tex]

\begin{equation}

R_{\underline{mn}}=\left(\frac{2R}{W}\right)T_{mn}-\left(\frac{1}{2W}\right)(D_{m}D_{n}+D_{n}D_{m})W\end{equation}

\[

\frac{1}{\surd}\partial_{n}\left(\surd RF^{mn}\right)=\frac{5}{4}\: D^{m}W\]

[/tex]

Did it work?

-drl

I know the post is in pt_br, but these “TeX” plugins for WP are really cool: Testing MathML.

[tex]e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{x}}}}}}}}[/tex]

Hmmm. Without the spaces, I bet.

[tex]\mathbb{R}Hom_\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{E}_i,\mathcal{E_j}[k]) = 0 \quad \forall k \mbox{ and } i>j[/tex]

Copy catting…

[tex]\mathbb{R}Hom_\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{E}_i,\mathcal{E_j}[k]) = 0 \quad \forall k \mbox{ and } i>j[/tex]

Neat! (assuming it worked)

Just an egregious editorial comment,

Markup languages are clunky and unreliable. This is a much better idea.

-drl

Quick! What’s the derivative of [tex]e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{x}}}}}}}}[/tex]?

-[tex]\delta\rho\lambda[/tex]

Maybe formulas must fit into a single line. Let’s see what happens if we break up the offending input.

[tex]{[}L_\mu(m), L_\nu(n){]} = [/tex]

[tex]n_\mu L_\nu(m+n) – m_\nu L_\mu(m+n) -[/tex]

[tex](c_1 m_\nu n_\mu + c_2 m_\mu n_\nu) m_\rho S^\rho(m+n)[/tex]

[tex]E = m c^2 .[/tex]

[tex] c = \sqrt{a^2 + b^2} [/tex]

I’m getting the feeling this new toy might need a preview button….

[tex]G = (3/4)H^2 /(\pi \rho e^3 )[/tex]

Its like christmas eve on midnight when the kids are busy playing with the new toys 🙂

this works or I give up

[tex]\sum_{\bm{G^\prime}}\sum_{w=1}^{2}M_{\bm{k}}^{vw}\left(\bm{G},\bm{G^\prime\right)h_{\bm{k},n}^{\bm{G^\prime},(w)}=\frac{\omega_{\bm{k},n}^{2}}{c^2}h_{\bm{k},n}^{\bm{G},(v)}

[/tex]

[tex] \dot{\rho}(t) = \frac{i}{\hbar}[\rho , H] [/tex]

hope it works .

Unfortunately I don’t have time to debug what went wrong with people’s failed attempts to use this, so I just deleted them, to keep my server from continually having to run failed latex commands. I’ll leave the rest as examples of what can be done with this.

Don’t know if it’s related, but another post had all the text after a left angle bracket (less-than sign) deleted…

-drl

How about arrays?

[tex]\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&i//-i&0\end{array}\right) \;\;\textrm{sure enough}[/tex]

Carl

Eggs on my face. Tonight I used instead of [ ], which was eaten as unrecognized HTML tags, of course. Apologies to Peter for filling his comment section with nonsense, but I hope that he will clean up after me. A previewer would be much appreciated.

[tex]{[}L_\mu(m), L_\nu(n){]} = [/tex]

[tex]n_\mu L_\nu(m+n) – m_\nu L_\mu(m+n) + [/tex]

[tex](c_1 m_\nu n_\mu + c_2 m_\mu n_\nu) m_\rho S^\rho(m+n)[/tex]

[tex]{[}L_\mu(m), S^\nu(n){]} = n_\mu S^\nu(m+n) + \delta^\nu_\mu m_\rho S^\rho(m+n)[/tex]

[tex]{[}S^\mu(m),S^\nu(n){]} = 0[/tex]

[tex]m_\mu S^\mu(m) \equiv 0[/tex]

Some problems happen when you type < or &: Those are “special HTML entities” and do not get properly parsed by the plugin. In all fairness, i have not had any trouble with the <, but i have had the exact same trouble with tables when using &s in order to separate the fields.

Religious wars aside: DRL, MathML is pretty good… and if you use the plugin i mention on the link i sent [see my previous comment above], you won’t have much trouble.

Speaking of plugins, there is a podcast plugin around. http://aleph.llull.net/post-to-speech/

You could try to include TeX to Speech features 🙂

D.R. Lunsford,

Latex is a markup language.

Peter,

This is very neat, haven’t seen it before in a comment section.

JF, not in the context of a browser, any more than Postscript is. “Everyone knows this”. Congrats on being the third person this morning to say something idiotic!

This thing generates images and puts them in image tags.

-drl

drl,

Please stop with the abuse of other commenters as idiots, save it for special occasions.

What is going on here is that the webserver is running latex, using a graphics manipulation program to turn the result into a gif graphics file, which then gets included in the page. Advantages: you don’t need any special fonts or plugins for your browser. Disadvantages: doesn’t scale properly, a search engine can’t get at the content, probably others.

[tex] \coprod_{2}=\biguplus_{1} [/tex]

Peter, the other two were offsite.

-drl

Nice, Peter – but I’m sure somebody already “proved” that it works…

Peter and everybody else: any similar software for use at blogger.cóm?

Best, Kasper

Chris Beasley has posted a new Beasley-Witten paper

in case anyone is interested

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512039

New Instanton Effects in String Theory

I assume some other blogs mentioned it but am having trouble

opening them, so can’t be sure. Is it news that Edward Witten

has coauthored a stringy paper? Don’t recall many such from him

recently.

Another supremely uninteresting paper without a millisecond expended on physical thought. To witness a genius like Witten produce this effluvia is analogous to watching some hypothetical Beethoven scribble down advertising jingles for an orchestra of detuned kazoos.

Not only is there no physics, but the paper’s English style is as deadly monotonous as VCR clock-setting instructions.

-drl

Lunsford, I notice that Woit comes in for criticism on Wikipedia for being needlessly kind to Witten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit

Ugh,

It’s pretty annoying to see the Wikipedia entry containing Witten-bashing and descriptions of my research I don’t really agree with. Too busy right now, but I’ll have to see if I can get this changed.

I’ve had a go at making a few (minor) improvements. Here’s a snapshot of the page as I left it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Woit&oldid=30491221

Took out the Witten-bashing, deleted the stuff about your research that was, I guess, unrepresentative, and replaced it with a couple of sentences from a post at this site. Hope that’s OK. Can’t claim that I’ve made the page better, but I hope I’ve made it less bad.

Logopetria,

Good, but you deleted the bits saying:

‘He argues that from the path integrals approach to quantum field theory, Euclidean four dimensional space makes the most sense, and Unitary group U(2) is a proper subset of Special Orthogonal group SO(4). Using a spin representation Spin(2n), U(2) gives the quantum numbers of a Standard Model generation of leptons. For a generation of quarks, the ‘vacuum’ vector transforms under Unitary group U(1) with charge 4/3, which makes the overall average U(1) charge of a generation of leptons and quarks zero.’

(that just summarises the ideas arrived at in hep-th/0206135) and

‘Witten, however, has his own share of crackpotism as the inventor of the mainstream string theory, ‘M-theory’, in 1995: ‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ (Witten, April 1996 Physics Today.) Peter Woit avoids an outright condemnation of Witten.’

then you inserted a link to ‘The Holy Grail of Physics’, http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3 which is a mud-wrestling argument between Woit and professor Srednicki!

Badly programmed thing! Last try, no & now. This is first time I TeX this century… Yay…

[tex]T\bigotimes\bigwedge T \longmapsto\bigwedge T\cr t\otimes a \mapsto t\wedge a[/tex]

How to get \cr work??? 🙁

The Wikipedia is just more Internet-Googly trash on the level of flag-waving right-wing war manifesti and porn sites. How surprising that it should contain questionable material!

A venerated reporter, John Siegenthaler I believe was his name, was falsely accused on Wikipedia of participating in assassination plots! I would sooner read the National Inquirer than that pile of horse dung.

It’s remarkable how so-called “freedom of information” has corroded intellectual rigor so rapidly. Take a look at the stink wafting from Usenet if you’re not convinced.

-drl

A simple proof

[tex]g^{ik} = \eta^{ik} + h^{ik}[/tex]